While 100% of tests passed on RHEL 8.4, we saw below failure on Alma Linux 8.4 (both RHEL 8.4 and Alma Linux 8.4 have same kernel version - 4.18.0-305.el8.x86_64)
Test v6LC.2.1.6: Neighbor Solicitation Origination, Reachability Confirmation in page 85,96,87 and 88
Test v6LC.2.2.14: Router Advertisement Processing, Router Lifetime (Hosts Only) Part B, Part C in page 173
Test v6LC.2.3.14: Neighbor Cache Updated from State PROBE (Hosts Only) Part C, Part C in page 256, 257 and 258
Test v6LC.3.2.2: Address Lifetime Expiry (Hosts Only) in page 295
Test v6LC.4.1.5: Reduce PMTU Off-link in page 316
Just wanted to understand what is the plan to fix the above issues? This is a blocker for any product to get USGv6 R1 and IPv6 Ready Logo certification
AlmaLinux is rebuilt from the sources of RHEL that Red Hat makes public. RH does publish sources of updates only for the latest point update of RHEL, which is currently 8.5.
Therefore, AlmaLinux can support only the latest content, which currently includes kernel-4.18.0-348.20.1.el8_5.
The kernel 4.18.0-305.el8.x86_64 is what RHEL 8.4 and AlmaLinux 8.4 were released with in May 2021. RHEL 8.4 (and hence Alma too ) did release several security patches and bugfixes before release of RHEL 8.5 last Fall.
Point is, nobody should run with kernel 4.18.0-305.el8.x86_64 today. RHEL 8.4 has some 4.18.0-305.x.y.el8*, while RHEL 8.5 and AlmaLinux have the 4.18.0-348.20.1.el8_5.
Are you saying that logos are happily granted on basis of some ancient version that did conform? (A semi-reasonable assumption, unless additions and fixes create “regressions”.)
Hi There:
Thank you so much for your response.
I was checking if Alma Linux team or anyone else have run USGv5 R1 compliance test cases on Alma Linux 8.x and if it is a known issue that will be fixed soon
Anyways, we will re-run the USGv6 V1 tests on Alma Linux 8.5 - kernel-4.18.0-348.20.1.el8_5
These fora are mostly peer support, just like Mattermost Chat. The Chat seems to have more bit more traffic and more “eyes of the team”.
AlmaLinux is built from RHEL sources. A goal is to be bug-for-bug compatible. If the initial 8.4 did differ in behaviour, then we were a bit short back then. It is also possible that the conformance test looks at inconsequential details that should not matter. (That is very common for “security scan” tools.)